GoingUnderground

I did buy the Ron Dodds remagnetiser, as I have quite a few Triang locos, and am very pleased with it. Once remagnetised I can see very little difference in performance between a remagnetised Triang magnet and the substitute neodymium rare earth ones. It may be my imagination, but the remagnetised originals do seem to run very slightly smoother than those with the replacement neo magnets. So for me it was a good investment as I have bought quite a few Triang locos with motor bogies as "non-runners" for repair. I can now take them apart, replace any missing items, some have been missing the bearings or oil retaining pads, clean off any corrosion, reassemble it and remagnetise it to restore them to "as new" performance.

I've got an ATT Branded Freightliner wagon with the Flexivan containers, and the US style couplings are housed in an assembly that is fixed to the the standard UK stock Mk3 mounting point with a nut and bolt. Remove the nut and bolt and the US style coupling and there is your perfectly normal and unadulterated Mk3 coupling mounting point just waiting for a Mk3 to be fitted, and you can reuse the same nut and bolt to do it. So if it works on freightliner wagons than I would imagine that the same applies to the rest of the ATT branded models made by Rovex.

I'm not so sure about your reference to "rivetting over the ends of two cast in pins". As I recall my 1959/60s models, my 3MT, R59, in particular which suffered several near suicidal jumps off the dining room table, the pins were solid zinc alloy and fixing was achieved by deforming/flaring the ends of the pins by means of a die forced into the end of the pin that left an impression like a cross or + in the end of the pin and displacing the alloy so that the end of the pin was made wider than the locating hole(s) in the coupling and securing the Mk3 coupling to the bogie, etc.. That meant that if the flared end on the zinc alloy ever broke, such as in my case when the loco landed coupling first on the hard floor, there was no way to re-secure the new Tensionlock other than using glue.

I think it is generally agreed that the first Triang Transcontinental diesel loco, R55, wasn't exactly an accurate model. It was very clearly based on a Canadian Pacific loco as the bodyshell has mouldings specific to the CP livery of the time, It clearly owes much to the EMD F7 bodyshell, but the shape of the nose is all wrong for an F7. CP had 3 similar locos, the EMD F7, the Alco FA, and the Fairbanks-Morse CFA16-4, with thanks to the Triang-Weebly website for the background info https://tri-ang.weebly.com/r55-diesel--prototype.html It almost seems as if the nose is an identikit of the 3 different locos. Deliberate, possibly, but it is known that the loco was modelled from photos, and it must be a possibility that photos of the 3 different locos were used without the "men from Margate" realising what they were doing. As Richard lines has said, the push to make the Transcontinental models came straight from the senior members of the Lines family on the Lines Bros Board, so it was all done in a bit of a hurry. The nose was much better on the double ended diesel, R.159, the profile looks much more lifelike, but possibly too curved, having seen 3 different EMD F7 & F9 locos up close and personal over a decade ago whilst on holiday in Canada. So I decided to see if it was possible to make an improved F7 starting with the Double ended loco bodyshell. I was prompted by some R.159s being sold on ebay where the previous owner had repainted them in some freelance liveries and added non-working Maerklin pantographs, sort of pseudo R.257 double eneded electrics. I thought that I could do better than that myself. The photos below show my improved F7, still in primer grey, alongside its "parents", the original single ended R55 diesel, and the double ended diesel R159. It still has to have the handrails adding, which I'll do after it has been painted. It is all R.159, but with some handmade additions, no cut'n'shut using the front of an R.159 with the cab backwards from an R.55. The back wall and corridor connection replicates an R.55 on the basis that the men from Margate probably had photos of that part of the loco when I didn't. It uses the motor and trailing bogies from the R.159 but with the overall wheelbase shortened and the projections below the bottom edge of the shell moved forward accordingly and the fuel tank relocated to match. I hope that you like it and feel that it is closer to an EMD F9 (as I had very detailed pictures of 2 separate CP EMD F9s (4106 and 4107) than R55. The positioning of the "portholes" and vents differs between the F7 and F9. I'm rather pleased with it, especially when it is eventually coupled up to Triang's CP liveried coaches, once I get some. Now for the hard part, painting it in the CP Grey and Tuscan with yellow lining livery. And the challenge after that is to make CP's matching "B" unit, 1900.

You can tell later Rovex ones by the mouldings on the sides where the yellow paint on the nose ends, they added the mouldings to help locate the spray masks when they switched to Rail Blue with yellow nose. Early Rovex ones do not have the mask locating mouldings. The modified tooling was used to produce BR Green models but without the yellow nose. They never produced a Green one with the yellow nose.. I've painted the nose yellow on a Green one myself. It looks very good, especially as it started life as "fit for spares only" on ebay. As Pat Hammond says it is a pity that they never produced it in that paint scheme. You can probably tell if it is a Rovex bodyshell by the presence of a housing/boss for the brass insert on the underside of the roof into which the body securing screw went. I think it was shouldered to help locate the brass sleeve which was intended to stop you cracking the body or plastic chassis if you overtightened the body securing screw. Also the headcode panel at one end was part of the chassis and used to project through an opening in the nose. So if you look at the inside of the bodyshell round the headcode panel you might be able to spot where the previous owner has filled in the opening at the end furthest away from the boss in the roof for the body securing screw.

Thank you for that link. But when I said "looking" I meant literally that as it's sitting on my workbench. But again thank you for the thought. I mentioned it as it is must be getting on for 64 years old as Mk2 couplings wwere only fitted up to sometime in1958 as the '59 Triang catalogue has everything with Mk3 Tensionlocks and all the bogie tooling both plastic and for the metal motor bogies must have been altered during '58 to take the Mk3s. And you can't fit a Mk3 to a bogie made for the Mk2 without doing some modification either to the Mk3 coupling or to the Mk2 mounting point. So they must have started fitting Mk3 couplings as soon as the new bogie tooling became available. I'm sure that Ruffnut will have more info on the changeover from Mk2 to Mk3 couplings, being the Triang expert on here.

I've bought several from them, but I've never had to replace one that's worn out, only replace missing ones in locos bought from ebay. I bought a job lot of about 20 used ones and they work just fine. Only thing to watch out for is that the carbon block hasn't got soaked in oil, that can cause problems if they have. I'm currently looking at a Triang R159, the blue & yellow double ended transcontinental diesel. It is a pre 1959 one as it has the Mk2 open loop and harpoon coupling. But it runs just fine even without any work from me, but I will remagnetise the motor magnet and clean the commutator slots. I bought the loco to customise as there is a part of the front lower cab broken away and missing, and it also was missing the fuel tank and one of the the pilots/cowcatchers. But when it arrived apart from the missing parts I found that it really was to good to muck around with. Also it exactly matched a dummy R.250 that I had waiting for a powered soulmate. So I'll be looking at trying to replace the missing parts and repair the broken lower cab nose, I have a spare nose from a previous conversion of a double ended loco to single ended to produce a loco that looked more like the EMD F7/F9 than the R55. Also I'll be converting the couplings from Mk2 to Mk3. it's relatively easy to do as that's what is on the dummy loco and I prefer the Mk3 Tensionlocks to the Mk2s.

I' m sure it would work, I've used it elsewhere in models to bridge gaps but the brush arms and brushes can get quite hot in use. Also I needed to desolder the wire that was attached directly to the brush arm, and as I started to do that the brush fell off. I suspect that was what happened to the previous owner and they thought superglue would be fine to reattach the carbon block. So I stopped desoldering and just cut the lower part of the arm away to convert it into the usual crimped contact pad that Triang used and shoved that in next to the new arm assembly just like Triang did.

I can't speak for modern/new locos as I buy relatively few of them, the most recent being the EFE Rail EHO Bakerloo 1938 Tube Stock. But I have been buying several old as in pre-1970 and a couple of pre-1960 Triang locos. They have been described as non runners, but I've got them all going again within around an hour of receiving them. The hardest one to sort was one where some numpty had superglued the little block of carbon on to the arm of the commutator brush with superglue, and superglue is an insulator - first time that I've ever come across a non-conducting Triang commutator brush. But I found it with simple fault finding - test everything in turn and as there are so few components, no damned PCB, it didn't take long and I have a supply of spare brush assemblies.

I thought that Phil Radley was going to do one if there was enough interest. Done well it could form the basis of the original Central London Railway MU DM stock as the sleet car in the Museum Depot was built from such stock. That's why it has that strange roofline, quite unlike that of Standard Stock that followed it.

I couldn't agree more. It's been done to death so many times on RMWeb and elsewhere. But it did come up in passing when the subject of DCC Sound for the '38 Stock was raised, and discussion of the quality and merits of the sound projects available for the EFE/Bachmann '38 Stock is within topic.

I didn't actually say that DCC was all about driving "in the cab". The standard publicity for DCC is "you drive the loco not the layout", and that is to what I was referring. DCC does make automated layout control easier but it was possible before DCC. Even Triang managed it back in the dim and distant 1960s on a very, very, very small scale with their automatic control R406 product using pressure switches, isolating tracks and a relay. As the vast majority of sound projects to date have been for locos, be they steam, diesel or electric, there isn't really a lot of difference between the sound experienced in the cab or outside when standing next to the loco. None of the sound projects that I know of take into account the effects of moving further away from the loco or the train it's pulling. Not surprising since as soon as you do that you bring in too many variables, notably the effect of the distance of the real-life observer from the real-life locoand the reduction in overall volue and the attenuation of higher frequency sounds with increasing distance. There's also the doppler effect on the frequency of the sound, higher when approaching you, low when going away from you. That is a further difficulty for sound projects if they were meant for lineside hearing. How would the decoder know where you were to know when to apply the doppler effect. There will be a real one but in practice the speed of a model is so low in real phonic terms that the actual doppler effect is far smaller than on the real thing, especially where express/fast running is concerned. On that basis you'd expect the sound projects to be different according to scale as the observer's notional distance from the loco and layout varies with the scale, the smaller the scale the further the real-life observer would need to be from the real-life loco or train to see it at that size. You'd also expect the sound to change from that produced by the loco to that of the wheels on rails of rolling stock as the loco goes away from you and the stock it's pulling rolls past. But again how could the sound project knwo where the observer was at any one point, and how could it cope with multiple observers in different places. As far as I know, no sound project does any of this, and I'm not surprised, it is an impossible task. So we're left with what we've got, the sounds from within the loco or when standing just next to it or flying alongside when it's in motion. Thus the sounds are only valid if you assume that you're in the cab or outside immediately next to the loco. I don't have a problem with this. As he's a producer/supplier of sound projects, I'd love to hear Charlie Petty's take on all this. I have some sound decoders but they're all installed in locos, a mix of steam, diesel, and electric as it happens. I've tended to steer clear of sound decoders for EMU stock for 2 reasons: 1. I model the London Underground and until recently there seem to have been very few sound project available for them. 2. The need, at least as I see it, for any underground train sound project to be able to offer both above ground and in tunnel sounds and to be able to switch between them on the go using a function key, or trigger the change automatically using occupancy detection to monitor tunnel entry and exit. As far as I know none of the '38 Stock sound projects have both Above Ground and In Tunnel, never mind being able to switch between them. And if you have 2 sound decoders one in each DM, they'd need to change at different times as ithe entire train doesn't all instantly enter or leave a tunnel. So whilst I like the idea of adding sound to my '38 Stock what's on offer so far doesn't really meet my needs as I currently see them.. And for the record I use DC for my vintage Tri-ang locos with vintage Tri-ang and H&M controllers ( just wait for the anti-vintage controller brigade to hear that, they'll be down on me like a ton of bricks), and DCC for my London Underground layout with an ESU ECoS. So I hope that I'm rather more open minded than some contributors seem to be on the pros and cons of DC vs DCC and Sound vs Non-Sound.

Love the coupler, so much better than that glaringly awful hole. Now why couldn't Bachmann, who are supposed to be so good at the detail on models, have provided that as standard, especially as the static Gilbow EFE model had one fitted ? Hardly expensive and it improves the look enormously. The number of folks who will be running 7 or even 8 car sets and need to remove the coupler would be few and far between I would have thought simply because of layout space constraints. By the way, the real thing is on the right, taken during one of the Museum 4 car set's outings some years ago at High Barnet. The other two , left and centre, are the Gilbow EFE models. No nasty hole where the coupling should be on them. and it is very easy to remove the coupling if you did want a 7 or 8 car formation and use the provided coupling bar designed to look like the cable tray coupling bar on the real thing.

We're getting rather away from Bachmann EFE '38 Stock but, again you're missing the point. There are two sounds to a train, the noise created by the engine(s) or motor(s) and their related systems, and the noise of the coaches or wagons. I don't think anypone wants to hear the sound of coaches or wagons rolling past which is why no sound files include them as you can't hear really hear them at the same time as you can the sound of the loco. In the case of MU stock you can hear both as either the electric motors or the diesel engines are distributed along the length of the train, or the formation is so short that you can still hear the motive power unit as the unpowered carriages roll past. I think that the Roco Z21 does support the display of a view from an onboard camera with a control desk superimposed below the camera view. Here's a link with more information. https://www.z21.eu/en/products/camera-locomotives I've tried trainsim apps, fun, but not the same as operating your own layout and watching your own stock on the move whether scratchbuilt, kit bashed or RTR. And who wouldn't want to see their layout from the cab. If you bother to look you'll find a lot of layout cabview videos on YouTube.

The view might be that of an observer from a distance, but DCC is all about driving the loco/train. Doesn't that suggest that modellers want to hear the sounds as if they were in the cab driving the loco or MU themselves? If you want sounds as heard from an observer then surely all sound files made to date won't suit you as they tend to be recorded onboard, i.e. in the cab or coach, not standing at the lineside as the loco/train goes past.

I just love the look on the passengers' faces when the '38 Stock didn't stop in the platform, or the even more mystified looks when it did stop but the doors remained closed. Having been on several of the '38 Stock's outings it's even more fun when you're in the train and looking at the puzzled faces on the platforms. This has opened an interesting debate on what should a sound file sound like. Should it be an "in the cab" or "in the coach" sound which in MU stock is probably the same, or a "lineside" sound? Also what no one has identified is that you need separate sound files for Underground stock, and for it to be possible to switch between them whilst the model is on the move: One for above ground running, One for in tunnel running. and of course in both cases the "In Cab/In coach" sound will be very different to the "Lineside sound. So should it be a choice of 4 function switchable sound projects all within the same decoder? I think the videos very clearly show the difference between Above Ground and In Tunnel running, and the difference between "in Cab/In Carriage" and "Lineside". And incidentally the only time that I can recall hearing the starting bell in '38 or '59/'62 Stock was when I was sitting in the seat immediately next to the cab partition and there was very little background noise to mask the sound of the bell in the cab.

It isn't true that only 70518 and 70545 had single end doors. Trailers 1338 and 1339 built in 1930 by UCC had single doors at the ends of the cars from new. Furthermore the 1931 batch built by Birmingham RCW and Gloucester RCW included 130 trailers (7060-7189) which had single doors at both ends of the cars ex-works. Three Standard Stock Trailers of 1927 vintage were converted in 1958 to run with the Flat Fronted 1935 Experimental Stock, 7510/70510, 7511/70511 and 7512/70512 on the eastern end of the Central Line. Also twelve further Standard Stock Trailers were converted to run with the 1960 Cravens Tube Stock DM cars. The converted Standard Trailers were in turn replaced with '38 Stock Trailers. Of the 12 Standard Trailers, 4 did not have the single end doors from new and 2 were so converted, whilst the other 8 were from the 1931 batch which did have the single doors at the car ends from new.

Those of you wanting Standard Stock have over looked one small matter. How do you motorise them? You can't use the '38 Stock DM chassis in the DM as the larger diameter wheels at the cab end would require different gearing to the smaller diameter ones at the trailing end, not to mention a redesign of the chassis for the "upkick" below the control compartment. So it wouldn't be a straight lift from '38 Stock where all 4 axles on a DM are driven from a centrally mounted motor. Not an insurmountable problem, but an extra expense. One solution would be to motorise the trailer cars instead. Also, as others have pointed out, Standard Stock was a real dogs breakfast, with each build being slightly different to the earlier one even when from the same builder. And the roof clerestory overhang would make for an interesting moulding tool challenge. Even the ventilation scoops on the roof varied between builds. The A, '38 and '59/62 Stock were relatively simple mouldings, and that is the sort of moulding that I'd expect Bachmann to look for if they are going to continue with more models as Underground rolling stock is somewhat of a niche product as it only runs in the London area, with the odd escapee to the IoW. I've seen folks on here dismiss the 1950s Triang SR EMU stock as "niche" because it only ran in the South East. That's why my money would be on O/P/Q38 with their flared bodies where they would only need a single body shell for an entire 7 car train that could have run alongside '38 Stock between Uxbridge and Rayners Lane (Met & Piccadilly), Wembley Park and Finchley Road (Met and Bakerloo), and Ealing Common and Barons Court (District and Piccadilly). Of course, they might surprise us all with a BR Class 501 which wouldn't be such an odd choice if you think about it. The only model to date was the Dublo one that ceased production back in 1964 when Meccano failed and was bought by Lines Bros/Triang. It would go nicely with Bakerloo '38 Stock (Watford LMS/R to Queens Park), or District O/P stock (Gunnersbury to Richmond). But a 501 is arguably even more niche than Underground stock running as it did between Euston & Watford (and Croxley), and Broad Street & Richmond. And yes I do know that there were services between Watford and Broad Street, I used it on occasions between 1979 and 1982 when I changed jobs and the new office was close to Broad Street. How I hated those window bars on the 501s, made you feel like you were in prison.)

Will Bachmann now move on to the '59/'62 Stock with their next Underground model, or will they do the one route covered by '38 Stock that hasn't been done so far by EFE/Gilbow and now EFE/Bachmann? What route you ask is that? The Central Line between Epping and Ongar when a 3 car set of '38 Stock deputised between 1957 and 1960 for a 3 car set of the flat fronted '35 Experimental Stock which was being used on test train duties. Could be a nice little earner as it would give folks who wanted a prototypical 7 car set the 3 cars needed to make up the full rake. Just add your own line and destination plates. Then there could be a special 5 car set to make up the 9 car trains that ran for a time on the Northern Line. Of course they could move back to sub-Surface Stock and produce F, O/P/Q38 or R Stock using the motors from the S Stock. P Stock might be particularly useful as they would only need one body moulding as the unpowered trailer cars used the same body shells as the DM cars. There was no partition between what would have been the cab and the passenger compartment and seats were installed in that space backing on the the carriage end. They could also use that body for an R Stock set as many of the Q Stock Trailers were converted to become R Stock DMs but they would need a second body as the R Stock trailers had a different window arrangement to the O/PQ Stock. With a small tweak the same body could be used for O Stock. They do seem determined to produce much of the LT/LU stock and infrastructure having given us S Stock and the Art Deco Harrow-on-the-Hill/Kilburn/Dollis Hill platform buildings, Sudbury Town booking hall, stand alone and low relief versions, plus a low relief tube station entrance from the Morden branch of the Northern Line. Their Art Deco Bus Depot also seems to owe much to LT.

I think you misunderstand what I mean buy a sticker. The stickers were never used on their own as far as I know. They were always stuck to the normal enamelled steel, brass end-capped destination plate, which was then slotted into its normal position. Unless you're up close and personal and catch it in the right light, you can't tell as the train pulls into the platform whether a destination plate has an overlay or not. Take my Mill Hill East plate. If it were not for the tears round the holes you would never know that it was the usual enamelled steel plate but with a vinyl sticker. The glue was damned strong as I had quite a fight to get it off my Elstree plate. Let me demonstrate with this photo, below, which was taken in May 2008 at Quainton Road/Bucks Railway Centre of the cab of a DM car. Rather aoppropriately, the destination is Watford (LMR) and the chances are that it is a sticker stuck to the original Watford (LMS) plate. Note the lack of a 3rd plate of any description. It was only in the later years that boards painted black with the LT roundel were slotted in to fill in the gap. Even if I enlarge the image until it is heavily pixellated you can't tell if it what you're seeing is an original metal destination plate or one with the S painted over with an R to turn LMS into LMR, or one with the vinyl stuck over the face of the plate. The chances are that it is the stickered plate. But it is impossible to tell. By 2010 they'd repainted the cab and changed the destination. Pity about the cab interior. It shouldn't be grey at all, but Cerulean Blue as this final picture of the LT Museum's working 38 Stock 4 car set out and about between Harrow and Amersham in September 2012 shows. The back wall is painted the same colour.

Despite my earlier comment about the age of the overlays, the one for Oakwood is different to the others. There is no branding on the back, and the typeface isn't Johnson as used on all the others. Compare the W, O and D with the same letters on the Watford overlay, very different, and not in the way that a condensed version of Johnson would be, especially as there was no need to use a condensed version. Also it has a glossy finish whereas all the others have a matt finish. It seems to use a style of typeface described by Mike Horne in his paper as being used on the Piccadilly line in the late 1930s. He also mentions that the LER used a company that could print on a shiny linen backed paper material, and that this material was used extensively for destination "plates". Does my Oakwood overlay fit the bill? It sounds like it does as the glossy appearance and the typeface style matches Mike Horne's description. But it doee have a self-adhesive backing and looks too thin to be linen backed, but I'm no materials expert. I was wondering when it could have been produced as Oakwood station was opened in 1933 as Enfield West. It was renamed Enfield West (Oakwood) in 1934, and changed again in September 1946 to Oakwood. There would have been a need for some sort of overlay for the Standard and '38 Stock then running on the Piccadilly as none of the DMs or Control Trailers would have had an enamelled destination plate bearing the name Oakwood. Could it date back that far, or was it produced for a stock transfer between another line and the Piccadilly, bearing in mind that the Piccadilly took delivery of part of the order for '59 Stock in 1960. Whilst subsequent deliveries of '59 Stock were "diverted" to the Central Line, but at least some stock must have been transferred away in 1960 and the remainder of the Standard and '38 Stock was displaced a few years later by the return of the diverted '59 Tube Stock from the Central line once the Central started receiving the '62 Stock. as '59 Stock had roller blind destinations there seems to be absolutely no need for an Oakwood overlay after the mid 1960s. Any suggestions when it might have been produced and why?

No idea at all. For what it's worth, my own theory is that it could have been for the '38 Stock when that was used between 1974 and 1977 on the ELL. There is a picture on page 100 of Piers Connor's "The 1938 Tube Stock" of '38 Stock at New Cross Gate showing the "NEW + GATE" destination as shown on my sticker. It can't have been any later than that as A Stock had roller blinds not destination plates and they were the last 4 rail stock to run on the ELL before its conversion to 3 rail. Strangely the New + Gate was the one that I acquired most recently. It is possible that it might be earlier than 1974 and predates the transfer of the '38 Stock to the line , but it gets complicated as the ELL branch generally got the leftovers after the needs of the Metropolitan main line and District had been met. In the early 1970s 2 trains of pure Q38 Stock ran on the ELL and being ex-District Line stock they might not have had Shoreditch, Whitechapel, New Cross and New Cross Gate destination plates and needed appropriate stickers, as following its acquisition by the Metropolitan Railway it remained operationally part of the Met line through to its transfer to the Overground Network and conversion to 3rd rail. So it's not unreasonable to think that Metropolitan O and P stock, converted to COP Stock, from the Hammersmith & City branch of the Met would have had the necessary plates ex-works as some Hammersmith trains did run through services via St Mary's curve to terminate at New Cross and New Cross Gate up to WW2. IIRC, the through services were stopped as traversing the 5 junctions on the route at between Paddington & Edgware Road; Baker St & Gt Portland Street; Liverpool St & Aldgate East - 2 junctions; and Aldgate East & Shadwell was operationally problematical. It is remotely possible thai it could be older still, if it was made for ex-District mixed Q Stock or F Stock which is known to have been used on the ELL, but that then takes us back to the argument over when "sticky back plastic" first existed and I don't want to go there.

The destination plates made in 1938 for the '38 stock on the Northern Line included the "Northern Heights" "New Works" destinations of Bushey Heath, Elstree, and Alexandra Palace. These were never used, for obvious reasons, and LT had some sort of repainting process or overlay application with alternate destinations. These alternate destinations were "Mill Hill East", which was applied over "Elstree", I personally peeled the vinyl off my Elstree plate, and subsequently acquired another "Mill Hill East" plate where the raised letters of "Elstree" can be seen very clearly beneath the vinyl, and it is vinyl, not paint. "Bushey Heath" tended to have "London Bridge" applied over it, and "Strand" was applied over "Alexandra Palace". The first overlays may not have been vinyl but paint, but the sort of handling that the plates got as evidenced by the fact that many of them are scored and gouged would suggest that it paint was originally used then it probably didn't last too long and was replaced with vinyl. That is most probably why the condition of the Ally Pally, Bushey Heath and Elstree sides of the plates when they come up for sale is always so good, they've spent the vast majority of their time hidden and kept safe beneath the vinyl overlay. Often they are better than the reverse. For more information please see the short paper that the transport author and researcher the late Mike Horne prepared which you can access via this link. http://www.metadyne.co.uk/pdf_files/Destinations.pdf Over the years I have acquired several unused vinyl destination overlays, the backing to which is Fablon in one case, Fasson Fascal in four others and blank on the remainder. I cannot say when they were produced or applied to the plates as they are all undated.. The lines concerned are the "East London", "Piccadilly", "Bakerloo", and "District.", which supports the view that it was LT standard practice when stock had to be moved from one line to another and there were no destination plates for the relevant Line available for the transferred stock. I've included a photo of the vinyls that I have, all still with their backing paper intact, plus a Mill Hill East plate where the raised lettering of Elstree is very visible when it is viewed in the right light, and the raised edge of the vinyl can be felt quite easily where it is missing next to the holes where the chains that were used to make up the "books" of plates go.

A few spots, more than a few. Because of their rapid acceleration, and the increased distances between stations once the lines were on the surface, a considerable amount of running above ground will have been at close to top speed. So think almost the whole of the Bakerloo line north of Queens Park and much of it north of Finchley Road. The same applies to the Northern line north of East Finchley, and north of Golders Green. Also on the Bakerloo Watford branch, and on the Met Uxbridge branch from Rayners Lane westwards, they were sharing running with surface stock capable of more than 25mph, so they'd have needed to keep up and not slow down the other services. For instance on the Uxbridge branch in the morning rush hour there were 3 Met trains and 2 Piccadilly every 15 minutes bwtween Uxbridge and Rayners Lane. The service pattern was in the 1960s: Baker St - Slow/All stations City (Aldgate) - Fast Piccadilly City (Aldgate) - Slow/All stations Piccadilly and then it repeated 4, or was it 5 times between roughly 7:15 and 8:30. The control gear also had a weak field setting that allowed for slower acceleration but a higher top speed, and I don't beieve that would have been provided if it was only needed between Hammersmith and Acton Town when the majority of the '38 Stock was bought for the Bakerloo and Northern lines. There are several pictures of '38 Stock in Piers Connor's "The 1938 Tube Stock" showing the weak field flag raised meaning it was in the weak field position. J Graeme Bruce also talks about the provision of the weak field in "Tube Trains Under London".

My first aircraft kits were all FROG ones. I had a Hawker Hunter, a de Havilland Venom, a Gloucester Meteor, and a Westland helicopter, it might have been the S55 and it was moulded in yellow plastic, all long consigned to the bin, sadly. I also had one of the FROG elastic powered wind up planes which did fly right off the ground. I also had a Tri-ang tricycle, and a Tri-ang croquet set (that was kid's sized). There may well have been other Tri-ang toys, but those, and the trains all of which I still have, are the ones that I remember. And at my age that's about all that I can remember.